Jim Cramer Backtracks, Calls Stewart "Naive & Misleading".

Thu, Mar 19, 2009 1:15pm ET

After admitting culpability during Daily Show interview, Cramer now calls Stewart's criticism of CNBC "Naïve and misleading"

Summary: On Today, Jim Cramer asserted of Daily Show host Jon Stewart that "It was a naïve and misleading thing to attack the media" for their coverage of the economic recession, just one week after acknowledging that CNBC's reporting deserved criticism during an appearance on The Daily Show.

During the March 19 edition of NBC's Today, Jim Cramer, host of CNBC's Mad Money, asserted of Daily Show The Daily Show. host Jon Stewart that "It was a naïve and misleading thing to attack the media" for their coverage of the economic recession, just one week after acknowledging that CNBC's reporting deserved criticism during an appearance on the Daily Show.

According to Reuters, following Stewart's interview of Cramer, NBC Universal chief executive Jeff Zucker reportedly attacked Stewart over his criticism of CNBC in his March 18 keynote address at the McGraw-Hill Media Summit in New York. According to Reuters, Zucker called Stewart "unfair," "absurd," and "completely out of line." Additionally, according to mediabistro.com's TVNewser blog, an unnamed "tipster" said that MSNBC executives were asked not to air the Stewart interview in their programming the day following Cramer's Daily Show appearance.

On Today, co-host Meredith Vieira stated that Stewart accused Cramer and CNBC of being "cheerleaders for the financial bubble; that you also had allowed CEOs to come on the shows and essentially lie to the American public without really challenging them." Viera then asked: "I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but did he have a point?" Cramer responded, "I don't think so." He later said that "It was a naïve and misleading thing to attack the media. We -- we weren't behind this. CNBC, in particular, has been out front on this." During the interview, Vieira asked: "So, you don't think the media bears any responsibility, Jim?" Cramer responded:

CRAMER: I think that there are people who bear so much more responsibility that it's just wrong-headed -- the politicians, the regulators, the SEC, the lenders, the investment banks. I mean, listen to AIG. I mean, you're going to compare the media to AIG? There's some people who really should get in line to do -- to really take the responsibility. And the media, it's just a naïve focus. It really is, Meredith.

However, during his March 12 appearance on The Daily Show, Cramer asserted: "I think that everyone could come in under criticism because we all should have seen it more." Cramer continued: "{A}dmittedly, this is a terrible one, and everybody got it wrong. I got a lot of things wrong, because I think it was kind of a one-in-a-million shot. But I don't think anyone should be spared in this environment." Cramer also stated of CNBC that "we're fair game. We're a big network. We've been out front and we've made mistakes."

From the March 19 edition of NBC's Today:

VIEIRA: OK, before I let you go, Jim, this is your first appearance here since the appearance on Jon Stewart's show?

CRAMER: You noticed?

VIEIRA: I noticed -- I noticed that. He was tough on you. You've had a rough week -- he was very tough on you, very tough on CNBC -- basically said that you guys had been cheerleaders for the financial bubble; that you also had allowed CEOs to come on the shows and essentially lie to the American public without really challenging them. I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but did he have a point?

CRAMER: I don't think so. I think --

VIEIRA: Not on any of this?

CRAMER: Well, I think it was a naïve and misleading thing to attack the media. We -- we weren't behind this. CNBC, in particular, has been out front on this. [CNBC senior economics reporter] Steve Liesman broke the first big, big subprime story. [CNBC anchor and reporter] David Faber did the best work that I've seen of any journalist -- print. [CNBC host] Erin [Burnett] has been at the forefront; talked about it so much we used to joke about, "Erin, how often are you going to talk about subprime?"

VIEIRA: So, you don't think the media bears any responsibility, Jim?

CRAMER: I think that there are people who bear so much more responsibility that it's just wrong-headed -- the politicians, the regulators, the SEC, the lenders, the investment banks. I mean, listen to AIG. I mean, you're going to compare the media to AIG? There's some people who really should get in line to do -- to really take the responsibility. And the media, it's just a naïve focus. It really is, Meredith.

VIEIRA: OK, and at the end of the interview you said you were going to try harder in terms of talking to the American public. What did you mean by that?

CRAMER: I think everyone has to. This is a crisis where everybody has to re-examine -- you know, that was an attempt, as it was throughout the interview, to take a high road, which I was brought up to think was a good thing to do, and to go in for a discussion. Sometimes high roads aren't well greeted in the media, but I believe that you should always try to do better. I think that that's kind of the fundamentals of what we all as journalists try to do.

VIEIRA: Jim Cramer, thank you very much. Erin Burnett as well.

From the March 12 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:

STEWART: Let me just explain to you very quickly one thing that I think is somewhat misinterpreted: This was not directed at you, per se. I just want to let you know that. We threw some banana cream pies at CNBC; you got a little, obviously, schmutz on your jacket from it, took exception.

CRAMER: I think that everyone could come in under criticism --

STEWART: Right.

CRAMER: -- because we all should have seen it more. I mean, admittedly, this is a terrible one, and everybody got it wrong. I got a lot of things wrong, because I think it was kind of a one-in-a-million shot. But I don't think anyone should be spared in this environment.

STEWART: So then, if I may, why were you mad at us?

CRAMER: No --

STEWART: Because I was under the impression that you thought we were being unfair.

CRAMER: No, you had my friend [New York Times business columnist] Joe Nocera on, and Joe called me and said, "Jim, do I need to apologize to you?" I said, "No, we're fair game. We're a big network. We've been out front and we've made mistakes. We've got 17 hours of live TV a day to do." But I certainly --

STEWART: Maybe you could cut down on that. We're going to go away. We're gonna come right back with Jim Cramer, right after this. —T.A.

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Obama's Tax Cuts: How it Will Affect Average Americans.

The media has been obsessing about President Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans—from 35% to 39.6%—even asking if that makes him a socialist.¹

But, do you know what tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term? 50%.

Under Richard Nixon? 70%.

Under Dwight Eisenhower? 91%

Shocking?

And for all the whining about rolling back Bush's irresponsible tax cuts, the truth is that Obama's plan cuts taxes for 95% of working Americans. Further, it closes huge tax loopholes for oil companies, hedge funds and corporations that ship jobs overseas so that we can invest in the priorities that will get our economy back on track.²

We saw a great chart in The Washington Monthly³ that shows just how absurd Republican complaints about Obama's budget are. Check it out and pass it on:

Sources:

1. "A socialist? Obama calls back to insist no," The International Herald Tribune, March 8, 2009
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/08/america/barack.php

2. "Tax Cuts," The New York Times, February 26, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27web-tax.html

3. "Soaking the Rich (Redux)," The Washington Monthly, March 8, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51234&id=15733-9067559-WasIO3x&t=1

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Big Media: Is Journalism DEAD?

The journalism profession is in crisis, where every week brings another bleak announcement.

The situation looks dire for the mainstream media industry, particularly for newspaper companies. Tribune Company, the third-largest newspaper chain in the nation and owner of 23 TV stations, declared bankruptcy. Gannett, the largest newspaper chain in the country, announced it was slashing 2,000 jobs. Scripps put a "for sale" sign on The Rocky Mountain News, and the Miami Herald is reportedly on the block.

As reported in another blog post in November, the newspaper industry has slashed more than 10 percent of its work force since 2000. And according to the running tally at the blog paper cuts, more than 15,000 newspaper positions have been eliminated through layoffs or buyouts in 2008

The crisis in the media industry mirrors why our financial system is a mess. Big corporations pressured the government to deregulate industries. Companies got even bigger through mergers, controlling the major institutions that impact our lives with little oversight, facing less competition and refusing to innovate. Instead, companies obsessed over profit margins to please Wall Street while failing to serve the public interest. As these companies take on greater debt, they can't pay back their loans — and workers get the ax.

Profits vs. the Public

It is true that profit margins have shrunk for some media companies, and the larger financial crisis undoubtedly impacts advertising. The Internet has changed the public's media habits. But most media companies remain extremely profitable, just not profitable enough to please Wall Street. (Some papers in the now-gutted Gannett chain enjoy profit margins above 40 percent.)

"We know that newspapers are making money – just not the astronomical profits of the 1990s," the National Association of Black Journalists said in a Dec. 5 press statement. "NABJ is reminding media companies of their sacred trust, which is more than the bottom-line. Never mind that media companies provide a private trust."

The crisis has revealed how little media executives care about journalism or serving the public's news and informational needs. It has also revealed how the government has utterly failed across party lines to protect the public by allowing for greater consolidation.

"As great newspapers, magazines, TV networks, and publishing houses dismember themselves around us, it would be marginally consoling if the pink slips were going to those who contributed so vigorously to their companies' accelerating demise," said Tina Brown in a post at the Daily Beast.

What Can Be Done?

Even though there is much to criticize about mainstream media, our nation needs the important work performed by journalists. The vast majority of journalists are motivated by the noble mission to keep the public informed about the world they live in.

But the current media crisis demonstrates that our nation's reliance on corporate-funded journalism is failing us. While bloggers and online news sites are stepping in to fill the gaping hole left by the crash of our mainstream media, few can afford to fund long-term investigative journalism. As a result, fewer journalists are covering the critical institutions that affect us all, leaving the public more uniformed and vulnerable.

Now, more than ever, we need to roll back media consolidation. We need to make a greater investment in public and community media. And we need to figure out and support the models — private and public, corporate and independent, online and off, professional and amateur, local and international — that give us the news we need to hold our leaders accountable.

We also need to finally recognize that our media system is the result of policies and politics. Just like the weak-kneed watchdogs at the SEC and Treasury stood by as subprime lending and "credit default swaps" sank our economy, the public servants entrusted with the airwaves cheered deregulation as local voices and viewpoints were crushed by the now-tottering media behemoths.

It didn't have to be this way. And the next time the Zells and Gannetts come to Washington seeking special favors and massive giveaways, we ought to remember how we got into this mess. Too much "regulation" wasn't the problem...

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.